Monday, March 19, 2012

The manufacture and assembly of a pointless controversy

The usual suspects are at it again in Iowa. As proxies for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, NOM et al are trying to get a state constitutional amendment passed in order to ban same-sex marriage and reverse marriage equality. To do so, a resolution must pass the House and Senate in exactly the same language in two consecutive General Assemblies before the ballot issue could come before voters.  They have yet to get it through once. I ask the usual question:


Can just one married couple in Iowa claim that same-sex marriage has had any adverse effect on their "traditional" marriage?



As in New Hampshire, they have years of experience with same-sex marriage. Trying to reverse it only highlights the fact that there is no reason to reverse it. Some gay people are happier because they are married. Some children are more secure because they have married parents. Some caterers, florists, suppliers and hotels made some extra money. Other than the fact that the bishops have a religious objection     where is the problem?
Proponents of traditional marriage say they plan to keep the political heat on state lawmakers even though the chances of forcing action on a constitutional amendment to let voters decide whether marriage should be defined as only between one man and one woman is not likely this session.

Officials with the Family Leader, CatholicVote.org and the National Organization for Marriage announced plans to host a “Let Us Vote” Marriage Rally in the state Capitol’s rotunda Tuesday aimed at keep attention on an issue that has festered at the Statehouse since the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in April 2009 declaring a state marriage law as unconstitutional. That paved the way for same-sex marriages to take place in Iowa for nearly three years now.

Organizers say the purpose of Tuesday’s rally is to demonstrate to state senators that marriage is important to Iowans and that Iowans want to exercise their constitutional right to vote on the definition of marriage via the Iowa marriage amendment, which would indicate the only recognized form of marriage in the state would be between one man and one woman.
Could someone please explain the point of all this noise?

Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.